You seem to suggest it is 'illformed' to have local knowledge and unanswered contextual questions. It may be 'illformed' in a very real sense, but also the most common of the circumstances we find ourselves in. To date science has primarily been an art and craft of mathematical representation of things out of their context, leaving it to engineers to deal with the 'messy bits'. I'd like to turn science into an art and craft using math to explore our contexts. So I would find the question well formed, and propose a variety of exploratory procedures for investigating the environment of he button to "catch the thread" of it's connections to other things...
Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:53 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Rosen, Life Itself - in context > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > So, you get the representation of the unknown context of a thing by > somehow > > knowing that the thing is not well described without it? How do you > know > > what you're missing? I don't get where you propose the missing > > information to come from. > > What? I don't understand. > > Your question was: "Given a complete math representation of a button, > how would you derive a math representation of a button hole?" > > I refused to answer the question because it is ill-formed. And I tried > to show how it is ill-formed, basically in two ways: 1) the symbol > "button" refers to a _transform_. In this case the transform is > something like "separate -> together", as in two separate pieces of > cloth being buttoned together. And 2) you can't have a complete math > representation of only one part of the transform. If the math > representation of the transform is _complete_, then you know all you > need to know about the whole thing. If the math representation of the > transform is incomplete, well, then you have to make up (or discover) > some stuff in order to complete it. > > If you reformulate the question, I can attempt an answer. But I have > no > idea how this relates to changing the level of discourse or "hopping in > and out of particular formal systems". So, it would be handy if you'd > preface your reformulated question with why it's relevant to the > thread. > > p.s. To see why the symbol "button" refers to a transform instead of > some concrete object, consider that one can never have a _complete_ > math > representation of a concrete object. One can _only_ build a complete > math representation of an abstract object. That abstract object can > refer to (or be an aspect of) a concrete object. But, that's the > beauty > of concrete objects. Little plastic disks with holes drilled in them > can be used as buttons, worry stones, desk levelers, decision support > systems (assuming the sides are distinguishable), etc. So, obviously, > by "button", you don't mean "little plastic disks with holes in them". > Hence, you must be talking about the _function_ or purpose of "little > plastic disks with holes in them". And one particular function of such > concrete objects is to fasten separate things together. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
